Jesse Marcels seniors diaries found by his family

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Let me ask you are question. Why did people blindly believe the official explanation that it was a simple weather balloon. Why did skeptics not question that, even though it made no sense?

Yet, we still had people saying that Marcel and others confused a simple weather balloon as exotic debris. We all know that was absolute rubbish, but skeptics tend to believe any official explanation that goes against the unofficial explanation.

Then it was officially project M, and the same people dismiss the original explanation, and believe this one. What's the bets that if the government came out and said that it was actually a secret militery craft, the same people would forget the project M explanation, and believe this one, as shown with the some weather balloon explanation.

I do not care what you say, or anyone else. I do not believe that Marcel and others would mistake beams of wood, rubber and foil for some exotic crashed craft. It's just does not make sense.

I believe in my opinion that the truth is still being covered up, and project M was the cover up. Course a cannot prove it, hence my opinion. In my opinion, I am more inclined to believe that this could have been some secret project involving something else.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Many here seem to carry around this attitude that people who "debunk" incidents are only following the lead of official explanations of what they are told. The people I see on this forum who dismiss or debunk, do so with researched information that is followed up with supporting links or CC&P pics of the documents in question. A true search for the truth. Not just a one-sided opinion which is what belivers do. Just look at this thread as an example of this.

As far as your question, if it's aimed at the time in 1947, people had a different attitude towards the government/military at the time and would have been more likely to believe the explanation given. Today, that wouldn't happen. So again I tell you not to compare anything today to 1947.
If that question was towards the answer given by the Air Force in the 90's, the answers given is supported by pages and pages of documents, correspondence, photographs, and so on. Any worthwhile skeptic would not just offhand say "okay that's the explanation" without reading and researching the report. It was a heavily researched by the Air Force. Unless you think that it was fabricated and lies.

Personally, when I speak with any authority on an incident, I've done so after researching it myself. I don't spew out opinons of others just because. Be it Betty and Barney Hill, JAL 1628, Roswell, etc. When I question those that believe, THEY are the ones that do little research and are uninformed. I have done extensive research on Roswell and posted a thread on what I found HERE.

The official explanation by the Air Force was Mogul flight #4 crashed on the ranch. When you apply a little common sense, a full Mogul array is obviously not the answer. A large amount of balloons, radar targets (or a radiosounde), listening devices, release squibs, location banners, telemetering pieces, and much more technical equipment would have been on a full array, which would have been hundreds of feet long. That's not what crashed. On June 4th, Mogul flight #4 WAS NOT launched. What WAS launched was a "a regular cluster of balloons". As I keep repeating, balloons, radar targets attached would have been on this test flight. The exact contents of what was found on the Foster ranch. That is my conclusion based on research and not on someone else's opinion. That's not following the lead of the Air Force or anyone. Don't categorize me with those that might change opinions based on someone else's changed opinion.

I recognize this as the typical believer mantra in that WE are the ones guided by opinions, when in reality it's believers that do this. Silly nonsense reverse physchology.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

So, what was your response to the first explanation that is was a simple weather balloon? And that Marcel and others thought a simple weather balloon was some sort of exotic material. Where you against this explanation at the time? Did you think it was nosense?

I recognize this as the typical believer mantra in that WE are the ones guided by opinions, when in reality it's believers that do this. Silly nonsense reverse physchology.

Believers in what? Yes, there is physchology to this. Part of that is people lime to be part of a group. Since humans have been around, it's been a huge part society. In this case, we have believer groups, and skeptic groups and debunker groups. People like to be part of a group.

Because I believe there is more to the Roswell story, then your belief instantly has to put me in with the believer group, even though I have stated thst I believe there is a more down to earth explanation.

a reply to: Jay-morris

So, what was your response to the first explanation that is was a simple weather balloon? And that Marcel and others thought a simple weather balloon was some sort of exotic material. Where you against this explanation at the time? Did you think it was nosense?

Of course I was skeptical. Marcels decades long recollection begins through Stanton Friedman in 1978. Friedman brought this public, not Marcel. An alien crash and materials with exotic properties was the story being sold to us for almost 20 years and most didn't have access to opposing views. Many are still stuck in this idea of an alien ship crashing. To give a balanced opinion, you need both sides. We had that through the Air Force and, with Friedman leading the way, he tried to make arguments against their answer. Unfortunately believers followed along with him and took on this same reasoning.
This is what happened through the 70s, 80s, and 90s with UFO cases. We only saw the exciting sensationalized view that was sold to us, not the entire event. Thankfully with the internet, we can now see both sides and how many of these cases where stretched. But then you still have those from the era who hold on to the alien answer.

The debris being broken up and scattered also contradicts the strong properties that Marcel claimed. It should have crashed and held together in large pieces if this was true.
 

Believers in what? Yes, there is physchology to this. Part of that is people lime to be part of a group. Since humans have been around, it's been a huge part society. In this case, we have believer groups, and skeptic groups and debunker groups. People like to be part of a group.

Believers in the alien connection to the UFO phenomenon. There are a few of the same arguments used over and over by that group towards people that dismiss aliens on Earth or visiting alien beings. People who don't believe do so because of the lack of scientific evidence, not because they refuse to believe, they have an agenda, don't know all of the cases and evidence given, or have a fear of believing and admitting it. I see these used all of the time.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
I have done extensive research on Roswell and posted a thread on what I found HERE.

... On June 4th, Mogul flight #4 WAS NOT launched. What WAS launched was a "a regular cluster of balloons". As I keep repeating, balloons, radar targets attached would have been on this test flight. The exact contents of what was found on the Foster ranch.

And as described by Miss Brazel Jnr way back in this thread. Your Roswell analysis, Ectoplasm8, is one of the most impressive I have seen on ATS, deserving of a permanent pin if only to help stop the endless recycling of a long-dead case.


It is also useful to read Met Officer Irving Newton's statement, provided to Lt. Col Joseph V. Rogan.




He was called to General Ramey's office (or in Ramey's words, "Get your ass over here. If you don't have a car take the first one with a key"). Here are the highlights:

The Col. and I walked into the General's office where this supposed flying saucer was lying all over the floor. As soon as I saw it, I giggled and asked if that was the flying saucer. I was told it was... I told them that this was a balloon and a RAWIN. I believed this because I had seen many of these before. They were normally launched by a special crew and followed by a ground radar unit. They provided a higher altitude winds aloft... The balloon was made out of a rubber type expandable material and when launched was about six to eight feet across.

... While I was examining the debris, Major Marcel was picking up pieces of the target sticks and trying to convince me that some notations on the sticks were alien writings. There were figures on the sticks lavender or pink in color, appeared to be weather faded markings with no rhyme or reason. He did not convince me these were alien writings.

... During the ensuing years I have been interviewed by many authors, I have been quoted and misquoted. The facts remain as indicated above. I was not influenced during the original interview, nor today, to provide anything but what I know to be true, that is, the material I saw in General Ramey's office as the remains of a balloon and a RAWIN target.

Is it even worth posting this response if the Roswell myth will continue unabated forever more? Probably not, but that's the wild 'n' wacky world of ufology for ya.

In all of these cases I think it's a good idea to take the position or take as one position (like bracketing in photography) that there are no aliens visiting and then see which explanation rises to the top.

We're dealing with a phenomenon that is tainted by liars, money making schemes, authors selling books, hoaxers, and even officials using things as a cover for technology.

It's a high 'outlier' phenomenon, meaning it's EXTREMELY unlikely as an explanation for a 'high strangeness' event.

Just admit that highly strange events happen and go from there. If and when there is a real visitation, trust me, we will know.

Even then, we'll have to separate it out from some kind of false flag propaganda used by some group to gain power or advantage.

Yes, it's a fun topic but don't lose your sense of perspective or cast aside your intellect when looking at it.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I suspect that the truth may lie in a third option, that I've never seen discussed.

It requires that we do not try to determine the nature of the crash or what materials landed, or where from. Rather than synthetic reasoning, maybe we try an analytical process, but one that works it's way back.

The mystery becomes, why was Roswell reawakened (and embellished 78-80)?

Friedman was directed to Marcel by a TV man for local TV station, in, I want to say, Mississippi or New Orleans. Without his link to Marcel, then we may never had the book, and the ensuing Roswell mania for 40 years.

Then, let's consider MJ12 documents took a few years to prepare. Were they made, hastily for Linda Moutlen Howe?
Or earlier?

Theories of them originating in the late 60s abound, wether from soviet or western forces as the originating authors.

Consider how early Moore joins the show, and how then, a little later, Shandera joins. Then we get MJ12.

My point being - can we put down the similarities of MJ12 to the Moore / Berlitz, Friedman book as being the foundation document appropriated to create MJ12.

Or, was the reemergence of Roswell part of a larger campaign that was always intended to lead to MJ12?

An odd, and convoluted theory, I fully admit!

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
And as described by Miss Brazed Jnr way back in this thread. Your Roswell analysis, Ectoplasm8, is one of the most impressive I have seen on ATS, deserving of a permanent pin if only to help stop the endless recycling of a long-dead case.

Thanks. As I've said before, one of my points was to be challenged by what I said, to tell me where I was wrong.
Would have loved to have had Stanton Friedman to question things. I tried in the AMA but was ignored.

Never was pinned or taken to the top of the page for more exposure.

 a reply to: ctj83

People are making it far more complicated than it is. The Air Force mistakenly responded with Mogul #4 when the the logical and obvious answer was in their report. I still don't  understand why that answer wasn't given. A Mogul #4 response was only adding fuel to the believer fire because they were right in saying it couldn't have been #4. Even in the Roswell Report, Charles Moore said:

"I can think of no other explanation for Roswell than one of our early June service flights balloon."

There's the answer by the man leading the launch of flights out of Alamogordo. Once you see the evidentiary path, a test/service flight is likely the answer.

a reply to: IMSAM

Old habits never die and neither will the Roswell UFO crash mythology. No one present at the scene saw nor handled anything but manmade materials. No UFO debris, no bodies, just tall tales that created and feeds an illusory industry. Diaries? Sure.

a reply to: Jay-morris

I agree 100%. Skeptics believe counter evidence too easily and believers believe pro-evidence too easily.
The one's who analyze objectively with an open mind are usually better at finding evidence, for both sides.

Ectoplasm8 disbelieves everything at first glance.

There will be a 3 part Tv-show about Jesse Marcel, Part 3 will deal about this diary.
I heard that Kevin Randle was part of the production team and it is coming this December on the History Channel.

www.imdb.com...